JUDGMENT : 1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:— “Certiorari:— Quashing order No. 166-DPCS&CAJ of 2017 dated 19th June, 2017 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect and directed to attach with Assistant Director FCS&CA, Jammu City Circle-II, as the same is the outcome of false and frivolous registration of FIR No. 37/2017 dated 17th June, 2017 registered at Police Station, Mahore, District Reasi under Sections, 409, 120-B RPC against the petitioner herein and others. Mandamus (i) Commanding respondent No. 2 to consider the representation dated 20th July, 2017 of the petitioner with regard to the revocation of suspension order dated 19th September, 2017 and to reinstate the petitioner in terms of Rule 31(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case titled Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and ors” wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within the period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge Sheet is not served on delinquent officer/employee. (ii) Commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, w.e.f., 19th June, 2017, i.e., from the date of suspension and treat the period of suspension as on duty and, accordingly, direct the respondents to release the salary and allied service benefits to the petitioner, w.e.f., 19th June, 2017, as the order of suspension cannot sustain beyond three months in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled, “Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and ors.” 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is admitted to hearing and is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Incharge Tehsil Supply Officer (in short, TSO), Mahore by the competent authority and he has performed his duty with due dedication, utmost zest and zeal. In the course of his duty, it appears that the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mahore registered a case FIR No. 37/2017 dated 17th June, 2017 under Sections 409 and 120-B RPC against the petitioner and others, who are all ration dealers of the area. This was based on the Complaint of one-Mohd. Ayub Aayan S/o Sh. Abdul Ahad R/O Village Bathoi, Tehsil Mahore, District Reasi. 4. This was based on the Complaint of one-Mohd. Ayub Aayan S/o Sh. Abdul Ahad R/O Village Bathoi, Tehsil Mahore, District Reasi. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner was arrested and thereafter, the respondent No. 3, namely, the Assistant Director Department of Food, Civil supplies and Consumer Affairs, Reasi placed the petitioner under suspension vide impugned order No. 166-DFCS & CAJ of 2017 dated 19th June, 2017 with immediate effect and directed to attach with Assistant Director FCS & CA, Jammu City Circle-II till he is exonerated of the charges of his involvement is proved by the Investigating Agency. 5. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is bad in the eye of law, as the same has been issued by the incompetent authority, i.e., respondent No. 3, who has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Furthermore, the FIR, arrest and consequent suspension is based on a Complaint given by a history sheeter and, therefore the entire exercise made by the official respondents is tainted with a malice and malafides. 6. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that his representation for revocation of suspension has gone unheeded. The marriage function is to be held on at the end of November, 2017 and, therefore, the authority should accord consideration for revocation of suspension, which according to the petitioner is tainted with the malafides. 7. Heard Mrs. Seema Shekhar, learned Sr. AAG, who states that the case was registered, petitioner was arrested, inquiry is going on and pending inquiry suspension has been ordered, which is within the power of the authority. However, the plea for payment of subsistence allowance will be looked into, if not already paid, because there is a requirement under law to pay subsistence allowance to the delinquent. The statement made by Mrs. Seema Shekhar, learned Sr. AAG is taken on record. The authority is, therefore, directed to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner. 8. Insofar as relief of revocation of suspension is concerned, the petitioner states that he has already made representations dated 20th July, 2017 and 15th October, 2017 for release of suspension and subsistence allowance in favour of the petitioner. Seema Shekhar, learned Sr. AAG is taken on record. The authority is, therefore, directed to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner. 8. Insofar as relief of revocation of suspension is concerned, the petitioner states that he has already made representations dated 20th July, 2017 and 15th October, 2017 for release of suspension and subsistence allowance in favour of the petitioner. The respondents are directed to accord consideration to the request made by the petitioner for release of subsistence allowance as well as revocation of suspension expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. If it is held that revocation is impermissible under law, the same will be communicated to him so as to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy as per law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Writ Petition disposed of with observations.